Facts
Case One: Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 SCR 494 (CanLII). The appellant for the case in front of the Supreme Court was Harish Bhasin. Bhasin ran his company under the name Bhasin and Associates. The plaintiff had legal representation in the form of solicitors McCarthy Tétrault. The respondents in this case were Larry Hrynew and Heritage Education Funds Inc., formerly known as Canadian American Financial Corp (to be referred to as Can – Am). The representation for the defendants solicitor Lenczner Slaught Royce Smith Griffin. The case refers most heavily to Mr. Larry Hrynew and Can – Am as the primary defendants. This case was heard at the Supreme Court of Canada courthouse at 301 Wellington St, Ottawa, ON and it was heard …show more content…
The original case dealt with the breach of contract by the Canadian American Financial Corp (referred to as Cam-Am) with Harish Bhasin, as well as the intended disruption of a contract by Larry Hrynew. Bhasin and Hrynew were both secondary sellers of Can – Am’s financial programs, and both had separate contracts with the company that would renew every three years unless one of the parties submitted a request to end the contract six months before the three year mark. Both men worked for their own businesses and had similar market/client bases. Hrynew had frequently expressed interest in buying Bhasin’s business from him to integrate it into his own client base. Bhasin was never interested in this merger and expressed his unwillingness to sell to …show more content…
After consideration and planning, Can – Am named Hrynew to a position that would have him auditing the other Can – Am businesses in the region. This made several companies nervous, Bhasin included. Bhasin complained to Can – Am about his worries with this shift, and Can – Am frequently mislead him to think that nothing changed and that Hrynew wouldn’t have any power over Bhasin’s business. This was a breach of good faith as well as a lie. After some time had passed, Can – Am sent notice to Bhasin that they were not going to be renewing their shared contract at the end of the three year term and this caused Bhasin to lose the value of his business. During this loss, Hrynew was able to successfully monopolize Bhasin’s client base and for very little cost, merge it within his established agency, getting exactly what he wanted without having to buy out Bhasin.
Case Two: Macera v Abcon Media Canada Inc, 2017 CanLII 45939 (ON
Case One: Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 SCR 494 (CanLII). The appellant for the case in front of the Supreme Court was Harish Bhasin. Bhasin ran his company under the name Bhasin and Associates. The plaintiff had legal representation in the form of solicitors McCarthy Tétrault. The respondents in this case were Larry Hrynew and Heritage Education Funds Inc., formerly known as Canadian American Financial Corp (to be referred to as Can – Am). The representation for the defendants solicitor Lenczner Slaught Royce Smith Griffin. The case refers most heavily to Mr. Larry Hrynew and Can – Am as the primary defendants. This case was heard at the Supreme Court of Canada courthouse at 301 Wellington St, Ottawa, ON and it was heard …show more content…
The original case dealt with the breach of contract by the Canadian American Financial Corp (referred to as Cam-Am) with Harish Bhasin, as well as the intended disruption of a contract by Larry Hrynew. Bhasin and Hrynew were both secondary sellers of Can – Am’s financial programs, and both had separate contracts with the company that would renew every three years unless one of the parties submitted a request to end the contract six months before the three year mark. Both men worked for their own businesses and had similar market/client bases. Hrynew had frequently expressed interest in buying Bhasin’s business from him to integrate it into his own client base. Bhasin was never interested in this merger and expressed his unwillingness to sell to …show more content…
After consideration and planning, Can – Am named Hrynew to a position that would have him auditing the other Can – Am businesses in the region. This made several companies nervous, Bhasin included. Bhasin complained to Can – Am about his worries with this shift, and Can – Am frequently mislead him to think that nothing changed and that Hrynew wouldn’t have any power over Bhasin’s business. This was a breach of good faith as well as a lie. After some time had passed, Can – Am sent notice to Bhasin that they were not going to be renewing their shared contract at the end of the three year term and this caused Bhasin to lose the value of his business. During this loss, Hrynew was able to successfully monopolize Bhasin’s client base and for very little cost, merge it within his established agency, getting exactly what he wanted without having to buy out Bhasin.
Case Two: Macera v Abcon Media Canada Inc, 2017 CanLII 45939 (ON